Summary:
In the QoS table (section 2.1.3. Supported QoS) the 'concerns' row illegally specifies the DataWriter for the DURABILITY_SERVICE QoS.

Proposed Resolution:

Proposed Revised Text:
Section 2.1.3 Supported QoS, QoS Table:
Entry for DURABILITY_SERVICE QoS, remove the word 'DataWriter' from the 'concerns' column.

In the DDS specification version 05-03-09, page 2-1 specifies that the PSM is for the OMG IDL platform. In section 2.2.1 (page 2-193), more detail is given as to what this PSM looks like. One area I don't see covered is the subset of OMG IDL that the DDS specification supports from a user's perspective. When a user defines an IDL file, what data types should and shouldn't be used? It looks as though valuetypes are not supported, but is it possible to explicitly specify what OMG IDL types are supported by implementations of the DDS specification?

Page 2-70, The get_sample_lost method seems to be part of the Subscriber class. However, according to the UML-diagram page 2-62 and the idl-listing page 2-166 and , the get_sample_lost method should belong to the DataReader class - not the Subscriber.

While reading the DDS specification, 'Data Distribution Service for Real-time Systems Version 1.2 OMG Available Specification formal/07-01-01', I found that the 'synchrobnous' and 'asynchronous' was switched as highlighted in red in the below paragraph in the spec.

<para #4, page 11>
On the subscriber’s side however, there are more choices: relevant information may arrive when the application is busy doing something else or when the application is just waiting for that information. Therefore, depending on the way the application is designed, asynchronous notifications or synchronous access may be more appropriate. Both interaction modes are allowed, a Listener is used to provide a callback for synchronous access and a WaitSet associated with one or several Condition objects provides asynchronous data access

I just wanted to let someone know about a typographical error I saw in the DDS spec 05-12-04-1. In section 2.1.2.5.2.16 "get_default_datareader_qos" The second paragraph reads in part

"The values retrieved get_default_datareader_qos will match the set of values specified
on the last successful call to get_default_datareader_qos, ..."

I believe that last function should be "set_default_datareader_qos" rather than "get_default_datareader_qos". This is consistent with other sections of the specification and makes sense. I just wanted to point this out. It looks like there used to be this same kind of error for set_default_datawriter_qos but was fixed in 05-12-04-1. I didn't see this listed in the DDS issues.